Linseed Dietary Fibers Reduce Apparent Digestibility of Energy and Fat and Weight Gain in Growing Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary fibers (DF) may affect energy balance, an effect often ascribed to the viscous nature of some water soluble DF, which affect luminal viscosity and thus multiple physiological processes. We have tested the hypothesis that viscous linseed DF reduce apparent nutrient digestibility, and limit weight gain, in a randomized feeding trial where 60 male, growing, Wistar rats, with an initial weight of ~200 g, were fed different diets (n = 10 per group): low DF control (C), 5% DF from cellulose (5-CEL), CEL + 5% DF from whole (5-WL) or ground linseed (5-GL), CEL + 5% DF from linseed DF extract (5-LDF), and CEL + 10% DF from linseed DF extract (10-LDF). Diets were provided ad libitum for 21 days. Feed intake and faecal output were measured during days 17-21. Faecal fat excretion increased with increasing DF content and was highest in the 10-LDF group. Apparent fat digestibility was highest with the C diet (94.9% ± 0.8%) and lowest (74.3% ± 0.6%) with the 10-LDF diet, and decreased in a non-linear manner with increasing DF (p < 0.001). Apparent fat digestibility also decreased with increased accessibility of DF (5-WL vs. 5-GL) and when the proportion of viscous DF increased (5-GL vs. 5-LDF). The 10-LDF resulted in a lower final body weight (258 ± 6.2 g) compared to C (282 ± 5.9 g), 5-CEL (281 ± 5.9 g), and 5-WL (285 ± 5.9 g) (p < 0.05). The 10-LDF diet reduced body fat compared to 5-CEL (p < 0.01). In conclusion, DF extracted from linseed reduced apparent energy and fat digestibility and resulted in restriction of body weight gain in growing rats.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".