Weight Control and Slimming Ingredients in Food Technology (Cho/Weight Control and Slimming Ingredients in Food Technology) || NUTRIOSE®, (Resistant Dextrin) in Satiety Control

P1: SFK/UKS P2: SFKc13 BLBS044-Cho October 15, 2009 9:18 Printer Name: Yet to Come

PART IV

Fiber based ingredients

213

Weight Control and Slimming Ingredients in Food Technology Susan S. Cho© 2010 Blackwell Publishing. ISBN: 978-0-813-81323-3


CHAPTER 13

NUTRIOSE R© (ResistantDextrin) in Satiety Control

Susan S. Cho, PhD, and Iris L. Case, BS

Abstract

NUTRIOSE r© or resistant dextrin (RD) is a water-soluble polymer that islargely resistant to digestion and absorption in the small intestine, and fer-mented in the colon, thus meeting the classification for dietary fiber. RDs canbe made from either wheat starch (RD; NUTRIOSE r©FB) or maize starch (RD-corn; NUTRIOSE r©FM). NUTRIOSE r© is considered as GRAS (generally rec-ognized as safe) ingredients. RDs are well tolerated at a dose of 45 g/day. Ithas been estimated that the small intestine digestibility of RD is 15% and thatmore than 75% of RD is fermented in the human gastrointestinal tract. The netenergy value of RD was determined to be 2.1 kcal/g, which is in agreement withthe caloric value estimated for other soluble dietary fibers. A recent study inoverweight Chinese volunteers indicated that 34 g of NUTRIOSE r© enhancedhigher satiety as compared to a maltodextrin placebo, the result of which loweredthe caloric intake and body weight of the NUTRIOSE r© group over a period of3 months. This soluble fiber is slowly digested in the small intestine that induceslow glycemic and insulinemic responses. RD can be used in foods and beveragesto provide desirable sensory properties as well as various health benefits such asprebiotic effects, satiety management, intestinal regularity, and glycemic control.

Introduction

NUTRIOSE r© is a water-soluble polymer derived from enzymaticallyhydrolyzed starch heated at high temperature and adjusted to a low

215Weight Control and Slimming Ingredients in Food Technology Susan S. Cho© 2010 Blackwell Publishing. ISBN: 978-0-813-81323-3


216 Fiber based ingredients

moisture level in the presence of an acid catalyst (Lefranc-Millot, 2008).The dextrin obtained is purified with activated carbon and demineralizedby exchange resins. Afterward, the product is chromatographed, and thehigh molecular weight fraction is retained and spray dried. NUTRIOSE r©

is resistant to digestion and absorption in the small intestine; thus, it isclassified as RD. In addition to the typical starch α-1,4 and α-1,6 gluco-sidic linkages, the presence of α-1,2 and α-1,3 glycosidic linkages makesRDs resistant to the hydrolysis by human alimentary enzymes. Thus, theRDs are classified as dietary fiber. NUTRIOSE r© or RD can be made fromeither wheat starch (NUTRIOSE r© FB) or corn starch (NUTRIOSE r©FM).NUTRIOSE r©FB is a mixture of glucose polymers with degrees of poly-merization in a range of 12–25 (mean 18). The number-average molecularweight is approximately 2,480 (range 2,000–4,000 Da) and the weight-average molecular weight is about 5,344 (range 4,000–6,000 Da).

RD can be used in various processed foods and beverages to providedesirable sensory properties as well as various health benefits includinglimited glycemic response and intestinal regularity. This soluble fiberhas a very low hygroscopicity, as it maintains its free flowing, powdernature at an 80% relative humidity (24 hours, 20◦C) before clumpingoccurs. RD is stable in high-temperature processing conditions, includingsterilization and ultrahigh temperature treatment. RD is stable in highlyacidic conditions as well as large-scale shear processes such as extrusion.RD does not significantly add viscosity to formulations and it is not readilyfermented by bacterial strains typically found in milk products; thus, it canbe used in dairy products designed for fiber supplementation and prebioticeffects.

Safety

NUTRIOSE r© and dextrins are considered as “GRAS” (Wils et al.,2008). The safety of RS was reviewed by the U.S. FDA in 1990 to beclassified as dextrins (21 CFR Section 184.1444). The joint FAO/WHOExpert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) has also recognizedthe safety of dextrins and has allocated an “acceptable daily intake(ADI) not specified” for white and yellow dextrins (JECFA, 1974).Data from an acute toxicity study, a 90-day feeding study, mutagenic-ity tests, and human clinical trials indicate that NUTRIOSE r©FB issafe and well tolerated for human use (Pasman et al., 2006; Vermorelet al., 2004; Wils et al., 2008). It was also found that RD did not affect the


NUTRIOSE R© (Resistant Dextrin) 217

absorption and binding properties of various minerals, such as magnesiumand calcium (Vermorel et al., 2004).

An acute oral toxicity study with a fixed dose of 2,000 mg/kg indicatedthat the lethal dose (LD50) of RD was greater than 2,000 mg/kg (Wils et al.,2008). The 90 days feeding study revealed no treatment-related adverseeffects when RD was given to rats at a level of 5% in the diet for 13weeks (Wils et al., 2008). No mortality and no behavior modification ofsignificance occurred during the study. No diarrhea or soft feces as well asno ophthalmological abnormalities were observed during the study. Theno-observable adverse effect levels (NOAELs) were established by thehighest tested doses: 4.4 g/kg body weight (BW) day in males and 6.5g/kg BW/day in females. This low toxicity is consistent with the similarlow toxicity reported for RD originated from corn starch (Okuma andWakabayashi, 2001).

An Ames test revealed that RD induced no mutagenic activity in thefive Salmonella typhimurium strains tested (Wils et al., 2008). In vitromammalian cell mutation assays at the TK locus in L5178y mouse lym-phoma cells showed that there was no mutagenic potential of RD. Therewas no significant increase in the mean number of induced mutants at anydose tested as shown in the assays with and without metabolic activation.In addition, RD produced no significant variation in the number of largeor small colony mutants relative to the solvent control with and withoutmetabolic activation.

The results of safety studies on other RDs are also relevant to those ofRD. In a rat feeding experiment, the LD50 of corn-based RD was foundto be over 40 g/kg BW, the maximum dosage in the acute toxicity study(Wakabayashi et al., 1992). In rats fed 10% RD (derived from corn) inwater for 5 weeks, no harmful effects were observed on internal organssuch as the pancreas, kidney, and liver. Furthermore, there is no evidence ofmutagenicity caused by the consumption of corn-based RD (Wakabayashiet al., 1992). Corn-based RD was found to have no adverse effects onmineral metabolism as measured by mineral binding properties in an invitro experiment (Nomura et al., 1992). The demonstrated safety data onNUTRIOSE r©FB and other types of RDs are mutually supportive.

Safety Studies in Humans

Various researchers reported that RD was well tolerated up to 45 ga day in both short term (van den Heuvel et al., 2005) and longer term(Pasman et al., 2006), with no negative effects found for gastrointestinal



parameters. At the end of the study, there was no significant difference ingastrointestinal complaints for the different treatments. This indicates thatafter 4–5 weeks consumption, habituation to the dose of RD had likelyoccurred (Pasman et al., 2006).

High daily dosages of 60 and 80 g caused mild bloating and increasedflatulence in some subjects, but no diarrhea was reported (van den Heuvelet al., 2005, 2005). Compared with a placebo, flatulence occurred morefrequently over the 7-day period when 30, 60, or 80 g/day of RD wastested (p < 0.05). On days 6–7, 60 and 80 g/day of RD produced a highfrequency of flatulence and bloating (p < 0.05), and 60 g RD decreasedthe frequency of defecation (p < 0.05). None of the doses of RD resultedin diarrhea.

Digestibility

Pasman et al. (2006) reported a small intestine digestibility of 15%, withthe range of 8.7–19%, for this RD. More than 87% of RD is consideredto be digested or fermented in the human gastrointestinal tract (van denHeuvel et al., 2005). van den Heuvel et al. (2005) reported that the fecalresidue of RD nonlinearly increased with the dose. In this study, it wascalculated that about 2% of 10 g/day RD and 13% of 80 g/day RD wererecovered in the feces, assuming a constant excretion of RD in feces per24 hours (van den Heuvel et al., 2005). Vermorel et al. (2004) estimatedthat the apparent digestibility of the RD was 90.8% and that approximately76% of the RD was fermented.

A daily dose of over 30 g of RD increased the concentration of α-glucosidase. The α-glucosidase activity, whose activity has been shown toimprove the fermentation of RD leading to short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs)and lactic acids that are a source of energy for tissues. A daily dose of over10 g RD/day increased β-glucosidase activity in a dose-dependent manner.An increase in β-glucosidase may be beneficial for health by releasingflavonoids, which are known to promote antioxidative, anticarcinogenic,and immune stimulatory effects (Wollowski et al., 2000).

Rat and in vitro experiments indicate that only 85% of RD reaches thecolon (Vermorel et al., 2004), where it is fermented by the bacterial flora.RD recovered in feces as polymerized glucose represented the nondigestedand nonfermented part of RD. Supplementation of RD increased wet anddry stool outputs by 45% and 70%, respectively (Vermorel et al., 2004),probably due to increased dry matter (DM) output (38%) and increasedwater output (62%). However, van den Heuvel et al. (2005) reported that



supplementation with 10–15 g of RD decreased wet and dry weight offeces without changing the percentage DM. Thicker feces were observedduring the past 24 hours on 15 g/day of RD as the amount of fecal waterprobably decreased. A decreased level of fecal water may be due to highSCFAs absorption that often accompanies high water and salt absorption.

The fecal pH in RD-treated groups was decreased from 6.6 (day 1) to6.1 (day 35), indicating increased fermentation while the placebo groupmaintained a pH range of 6.5–6.6 during the test period (Vermorel etal., 2004). The pH remained stable from day 21 onward for all groups.The total sum of the SCFAs (acetate, propionate, butyrate, and isoformsof SCFAs) did not show changes in concentration due to time or studysubstance.

Fermentation

The colonic effects and the production of SCFAs, as contributors tothe daily energy supply, are key factors in providing a long-lasting energysupply of RD. van den Heuvel et al. (2005) studied the fermentation of RDby a breath hydrogen excretion test. This test was carried out on the lastday of 10 or 15 g/day of RD or placebo treatment. As compared with thebaseline, breath hydrogen excretion levels before breakfast significantlyincreased. However, there was no overall difference between the areasunder the curve (AUC) among treatments, except from the points 270and 300 minutes after ingestion. The absence of an overall significantdifference in AUC attributable to RD may be due to a relatively smalldose of RD (2.5 or 3.0 g) in each meal and/or the large variations inmeasurement data.

Caloric Value

Direct determination of net energy value (NEV) of fibers is difficult,mainly because they are consumed in small quantities, and thus inducesmall differences in energy expenditure. Digestible energy value (DEV),metabolizable energy value (MEV), and NEV are generally estimatedfrom measurements of fiber fermentability, breath tests, and hypotheseson gas, microbial mass and volatile fatty acids (VFAs) production, andefficiency of VFA energy utilization.

In the study of Vermorel et al. (2004), the NEV of the tested RDwas estimated using three prediction equations as outlined in Livesey(1992, 2001). First, the MEV of the tested RD was estimated from its



metabolizable energy content, assuming that hydrogen and methane en-ergy losses accounted for 5% of the fermented carbohydrate (CHO) energy,and fermentation heat also accounted for 5%. VFA energy was estimatedas “Estimated ME Glucose energy (GE)” (derived from enzymatic diges-tion). The efficiencies of GE and VFA energy utilization are estimated at1 and 0.85, respectively, to produce Equation (1).

NEV = (Gross energy × Enzymatic digestibility (ED))

+(VFA energy × 0.85) (13.1)

Secondly, the carbohydrate substitutes method was used: The enzymati-cally digested fraction is assumed to produce glucose used with an ener-getic efficiency of 1. Fermentable carbohydrates are assumed to supply8 kJ NE/g to result in Equation (2).

NEV = (Gross energy × Enzymatic digestibility)

+(Fermentable CHO × 8) (13.2)

Third is the minimal methodology for net ME. The apparent digestibilityof fermentable carbohydrates is used to estimate VFA production, assum-ing that 65% of actually “fermented energy” is recovered as VFA. Theefficiency of ME utilization from fermentable carbohydrates is assumedto be 0.76 to yield Equation (3).

NEV = (GE × ED) + (Fermentable CHO

×Unavailable CHO digestibility × 0.65 × 0.76) (13.3)

From these three methods, NEVs of RD were estimated to be 8.7, 8.9,and 11.4 kJ/g DM in healthy young men (Vermorel et al., 2004). In thisstudy, ten healthy young men were fed for 31-day period a maintenancediet supplemented with either placebo (dextrose) or the NUTRIOSE r©

(100 g DM/day) in a crossover design. After a 20-day adaptation period,food intake was determined for 11 days using the duplicate meal method,and feces and urine were collected for 10 days for further analyses. TheME value of the NUTRIOSE r© was 14.1 (SD 2.3) kJ/g DM, 14% lessthan the tabulated values of sucrose and starch. NEV of RD (mean of2.0 kcal/g) estimated by Vermorel et al. (2004) is in agreement with thecaloric value estimated for soluble dietary fibers (Livesey, 1992). Thesestudies indicate that soluble dietary fibers may have a positive impact onthe total daily energy expenditures through the colonic fermentations andthe viscosity of the gut contents. Moreover, RD, used as a bulking agentto easily replace fat or carbohydrates, allows obtaining food with loweroverall caloric value.



Satiety

During and immediately after eating, afferent information provides themajor control over appetite (Blundell, 1999). Physiological events are in-deed triggered in responses to the ingestion of food and form the inhibitoryprocesses which stop eating and then prevent the reoccurrence of eatinguntil another meal is triggered. These physiological events are termed“satiety signals”. Satiation is the process that leads to the termination offood intake. Termination of the period of satiety leads to the resurgenceof the feeling of hunger and a consequent resumption of the food-intakecycle (Blundell, 1999). It appears that RD has a more powerful satiatingeffect in subjects as compared to a maltodextrin placebo.

During a recent study, with no energy restriction (ad libitum diet) butin which energy intakes were recorded, overweight Chinese volunteersreceived beverages containing either 17 g NUTRIOSE r© or 17 g mal-todextrin (placebo), twice daily, for 12 weeks. It was observed that 34 gof RD enhanced higher satiety than did maltodextrin (Roquette Group,2008). In this study, significant decreases in body weight (p < 0.0001),body mass index (p < 0.0001), body fat (p < 0.0001), and hunger (p <

0.001) associated with a decrease in caloric intake (p < 0.001) were mea-sured throughout the study in the RD group. Abdominal scans indicateda significant reduction of waist circumference in the RD group while nochanges were observed in the placebo group (p < 0.001). The authorsconcluded that RD supplementation significantly decreased the feeling ofhunger and expression of some biological markers of metabolic syndrome,including body weight than did maltodextrin.

van den Heuvel et al. (2005) also investigated the effects of RD sup-plementation to usual diets, meals contained similar amounts of energyto their habitual breakfast or dinner, on satiety and energy intakes. Inthis study, subjects (average BMI = 22.3 kg/m2) ate standard breakfast,lunch, and afternoon snacks that were not designed for energy restriction.Hunger and satiety were measured just before breakfast (time point 0)and at 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 240 (just before lunch), 270, and 480minutes. Feelings of hunger and satiety were rated by a 10 cm visualanalogue scale (VAS), such as appetite for a meal, appetite for somethingsweet, appetite for something savory, satiety (fullness), and feeble/weakwith hunger) on day 7 of treatment. Only the AUC of the rating on “feebleor weak with hunger” was lower on day 7 of the treatment with 15 g/day ofRD compared to 15 g/day of the placebo (p = 0.04). No other significantdifferences in satiety scores were found. Also, an increasing dose of RDdid not affect food habits as compared with the placebo. The findings from



these studies suggest that RD may have a satiating effect in subjects withenergy-unrestricted diets.

Body Fat Control in Animals

It has been proposed that RD reduced the body fat content in animals bymoderating postprandial glucose levels and by lowering insulin secretion(Okuma and Wakabayashi, 2001). Wakabayashi et al. (1991) reported thatRD (5%) supplementation to a high-sucrose diet for 8 weeks did not inducean increase in body fat, whereas a high-sucrose diet alone increased thebody fat in rats. A 110-day-old broiler chicken study reported a similartrend (Wakanabe et al., 1993). Supplementation of 5% RD-corn to a dietreduced the total body fat content, the fat content in the liver (from 27%to 17%) and other internal organs in broiler chickens.

Glycemic Response and Satiety

The rate of absorption of the RD at the different stages of the gastroin-testinal tract plays a major role in determining its metabolic effect. This sol-uble fiber is slowly digested in the small intestine (15% of the ingested doseevaluated in vitro; Vermorel et al., 2004), which induces a low glycemicresponse (GR = 25) and a low insulinemic response (IR = 13) (Donazzoloet al., 2003). As compared to glucose, the low insulinemic response of theRD contributes to a greater feeling of satiety. Incorporation of this RD intofoods such as pasta, biscuits, and syrups significantly reduced the glycemicresponse of a meal (Lefranc-Millot, 2008; Lefranc-Millot et al., 2006).Peak glycemia was 7.6 mmol/L for glucose and 5.3 mmol for the pastacontaining RD. Mean AUC for RD pasta was significantly lower than thatof glucose (42.0 vs. 123.6, p < 0.01). Syrups made with RD elicit a glucoseresponse of only 10% of the equivalent product made with sugar when usedin a fruit drink (Lefranc-Millot et al., 2006). Mean AUC for RD biscuitswas significantly lower than that of glucose (66.6 vs. 137.0, p < 0.01).

Several researchers have reported that low glycemic index (GI) foodsenhance higher satiety responses than high glycemic foods. GI correspondsto the incremental area under the blood response curve measured over2-hour time of a 50-g CHO portion of a test food expressed as percentageof the response to the same amount of CHO from a reference food (usuallyglucose) consumed by the same subject (FAO/WHO, 1988). Because low-GI foods are characterized by a slower rate of digestion and absorption,



prolonged feedback (likely through satiety signals) to the hunger/satietycenter in the brain is probably due to continuous stimulation of nutrientreceptors in the gastrointestinal tract.

In a study with 26 males (mean BMI = 23.4 ± 2.2 kg/m2), Pasmanet al. (2003) reported that consumption of a simple CHO breakfast re-sulted in higher glucose and insulin levels at 30 minutes after breakfastconsumption. Satiety scores were higher after complex CHO breakfastconsumption for the first 90 minutes after intake. Warren et al. (2003)reported that low-GI foods eaten at breakfast have a significant impacton food intake at lunch. This study investigated the effect of three testbreakfasts—low-GI, low-GI with 10% added sucrose, and high-GI—onad libitum lunch intake, appetite, and satiety. Lunch intake was lower afterlow-GI and low-GI with added sucrose breakfasts compared with lunchintake after high-GI and habitual breakfasts (which were high-GI): high-GI versus low-GI = 145 ± 54 kcal; high-GI versus low-GI plus sucrose =119 ± 53 kcal; low-GI plus sucrose versus low-GI = 27 ± 54 kcal. Lunchintake after the low-GI breakfast and the low-GI breakfast with addedsucrose was also significantly lower than that after the habitual breakfast:low-GI versus habitual = −109 ± 75 kcal; low-GI plus sucrose versushabitual = −83 ± 75 kcal; high-GI versus habitual = 36 ± 75 kcal. Atlunchtime, hunger ratings were greater after the high-GI breakfast com-pared with the other two test breakfasts on two of the three experimentaldays. Prelunch satiety scales were inversely related to subsequent foodintake. Based on time to request additional food, a prolongation of satietywas observed after the low-GI meal replacement as compared to high-GImeal replacement (Ball et al., 2003).

There are reports that both high-GI and low-GI carbohydrates wereshown to suppress appetite and food intake but the time courses were dif-ferent (Anderson et al., 2002; Rogers and Blundell, 1989; Woodend andAnderson, 2001). High-GI carbohydrates induced an early short-term sa-tiating effect. There was an inverse association between the blood glucoseresponse and the subjective appetite and food intake in the 1 hour af-ter consumption of isovolumetric preloads of carbohydrates (Andersonet al., 2002). One hour after their consumption, high-GI carbohy-drates (glucose, polycose, and sucrose) more effectively suppressed foodintake than did low-GI carbohydrates (amylose, amylopectin, and afructose–glucose mixture). The early satiating effect of high-GI carbo-hydrates was also confirmed by other investigators (Rogers and Blundell,1989; Woodend and Anderson, 2001). However, low-GI foods showedhigher satiety than did high-GI foods at 2–6 hours after the ingestion(Anderson et al., 2002).



Summary

NUTRIOSE r© is a soluble fiber, derived from corn or wheat, that isclassified as RD. Nutriose r© can function as a bulking agent and is welltolerated in humans, with a dose of 45g/day showing no side effects. Stud-ies show that RD reduces glycemic and insulinemic responses, which isassociated with satiety control. Recent studies indicate that dietary sup-plementation of RD may aid in satiety control. Several clinical studieshave demonstrated the prebiotic nature of RD. RDs can be used in foodformulations targeting satiety management. In addition, RD can be usedin functional foods designed for limiting glycemic and insulinemic re-sponses, fortifying diets in fiber, prebiotic effects, or intestinal regularity.

References

Anderson GH, Catherine NL, Woodend DM. Inverse association betweenthe effect of carbohydrates on blood glucose and subsequent short-termfood intake in young men. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;76:1023–1030.

Ball SD, Keller KR, Moyer-Mileur LJ. Prolongation of satiety after lowversus moderately high glycemic index meals in obese adolescents.Pediatrics 2003;111(3):488–494.

Blundell JE. The control of appetite: basic concepts and practical impli-cations. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1999;129:182–188.

Donazzolo Y, Pelletier X, Cristiani I, Wils D. Glycemic and insulinemicindexes of NUTRIOSE r©FB in healthy subjects. Proceedings of theDietary Fibre Conference. Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, 2003,p. 53.

FAO/WHO. Carbohydrates in human nutrition. Report of a JointFAO/WHO Expert Consultation (Rome, 14–18 April 1997). FAO Foodand Nutrition Paper 66. 1988.

JECFA Joint Expert Committee of Food Additives (JECFA) Dextrins(WHO Food Additive Series 17). 1974.

Lefranc-Millot C. NUTRIOSE r©06: a useful soluble dietary fibre for addednutritional value. Nutr Bull 2008;33:234–239.

Lefranc-Millot C, Wils D, Henry J, Lightowler H, Saniez-Degrave M-H.NUTRIOSE

r©a resistant dextrin, and MALTISORB r©, a sugar alcohol,



two key ingredients for healthy diets and obesity management. ObesRev 2006;7(Suppl. 2):269.

Livesey G. Energy values of dietary fibre and sugar alcohols for man. NutrRes Rev 1992;5:61–84.

Livesey G. A perspective on food energy standards for nutrition labelling.Brit J Nutr 2001;85:271–287.

Nomura M, Ohashi M, Nishigawa T, Kubota M, Ohkuma K, Nakajima Y,Abe H. Effect of dietary fibers on the diffusion of glucose and metal ionsthrough cellulose membrane. J Jpn Soc Clin Nutr 1992;13:141–147 (inJapanese).

Okuma K, Wakabayashi S. Fibersol-2: a soluble, non-digestible, starchderived dietary fiber. In: McCleary BV, Prosky L (eds.). AdvancedDietary Fiber Technology. Blackwell Science, Malden, MA, 2001,pp. 509–523.

Pasman WJ, Blokdijk VM, Bertina FM, Hopman WP, Hendriks HF. Effectof two breakfasts, different in carbohydrate composition, on hungerand satiety and mood in healthy men. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord2003;27(6):663–668.

Pasman WJ, Wils D, Saniez MH, Kardinaal A. Long-term gastro-intestinal tolerance of NUTRIOSE r©FB in healthy men. Eur J ClinNutr 2006;60(8):1024–1034.

Rogers P, Blundell JE. Separating the actions of sweetness and calories:effects of saccharin and carbohydrates on hunger and food intake inhuman subjects. Physiol Behav 1989;6(45):1093–1099.

Roquette Group. Effects of Dietary Supplementation with the SolubleFiber NUTRIOSE

r©on weight management in healthy young adult men.

Nutritional Study Abstract No. 3, 2008.

van den Heuvel EG, Wils D, Pasman WJ, Bakker M, Saniez MH,Kardinaal AF. Short-term digestive tolerance of different doses ofNUTRIOSE r©FB, a food dextrin, in adult men. Eur J Clin Nutr2005;58(7):1046–1055.

Vermorel M, Coudray C, Wils D, Sinaud S, Tressol JC, Montaurier C,Vernet J, Brandolini M, Bouteloup-Demange C, Rayssiguier Y. Energyvalue of a low-digestible carbohydrate, NUTRIOSE

r©FB, and its impact

on magnesium, calcium and zinc apparent absorption and retention inhealthy young men. Eur J Nutr 2004;43:344–352.



Wakabayashi S, Satouchi M, Nogami Y, Ohkuma K, Matsuoka A. Effectof indigestible dextrin on cholesterol metabolism in rat. J Jpn Soc NutrFood Sci 1991;44:471–478 (in Japanese).

Wakabayashi S, Satouchi M, Ueda Y, Ohkuma K. Acute toxicity andmutagenicity studies of indigestible dextrin, and its effect on bowelmovement of the rat. J Food Hyg Soc Japan 1992;33:557–562 (inJapanese).

Wakanabe O, Fujinaka K, Uchiyama K, Katta Y, Okuma K. Effects ofgalacto-oligosaccharides and indigestible dextrin on fat accumulationin broiler. Jpn J Poult Sci 1993;30:35 (in Japanese).

Warren JM, Henry CJ, Simonite V. Low glycemic index break-fasts and reduced food intake in preadolescent children. Pediatrics2003;112(5):e414.

Wils D, Scheuplein RJ, Deremaux L, Looten P. Safety profile of a fooddextrin: acute oral, 90-day rat feeding and mutagenicity studies. FoodChem Toxicol 2008;46:3254–3261.

Wollowski I, Rechkemmer G, Pool-Zobel BL. Protective role of probioticsand prebiotics in colon cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;73:451S–455S.

Woodend DM, Anderson GH. Effect of sucrose and safflower oil preloadson short term appetite and food intake of young men. Appetite2001;37(3):185–195.

Documents

Weight Control and Slimming Ingredients in Food Technology (Cho/Weight Control and Slimming Ingredients in Food Technology) || NUTRIOSE®, (Resistant Dextrin) in Satiety Control