CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 462Food composition and propertiesGastrointestinal motility and disordersNutritional Studies and Diet

Fecal weight, colon cancer risk, and dietary intake of nonstarch polysaccharides (dietary fiber)

Open access
Cummings, John H., Bingham, Sheila A., Heaton, Kenneth W., Eastwood, Martin A.·1992·Gastroenterology
DOI 10.1016/0016-5085(92)91435-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Low fecal weight and slow bowel transit time are thought to be associated with bowel cancer risk, but few published data defining bowel habits in different communities exist. Therefore, data on stool weight were collected from 20 populations in 12 countries to define this risk more accurately, and the relationship between stool weight and dietary intake of nonstarch polysaccharides (NSP) (dietary fiber) was quantified. In 220 healthy U.K. adults undertaking careful fecal collections, median daily stool weight was 106 g/day (men, 104 g/day; women, 99 g/day; P = 0.02) and whole-gut transit time was 60 hours (men, 55 hours; women, 72 hours; P = 0.05); 17% of women, but only 1% of men, passed < 50 g stool/day. Data from other populations of the world show average stool weight to vary from 72 to 470 g/day and to be inversely related to colon cancer risk (r = -0.78). Meta-analysis of 11 studies in which daily fecal weight was measured accurately in 26 groups of people (n = 206) on controlled diets of known NSP content shows a significant correlation between fiber intake and mean daily stool weight (r = 0.84). Stool weight in many Westernized populations is low (80-120 g/day), and this is associated with increased colon cancer risk. Fecal output is increased by dietary NSP. Diets characterized by high NSP intake (approximately 18 g/day) are associated with stool weights of 150 g/day and should reduce the risk of bowel cancer.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0016-5085(92)91435-7

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The claim that the human microbiota weighs 1 to 2 kg is unlikely to be true in most cases.

    “Nonetheless, it is unlikely to be true in most cases.”

    From Human microbiome myths and misconceptions (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Results and Table 1 report daily stool weights, including a median of 106 g/day in healthy U.K. adults. Our copy does not address the total weight of the human microbiota or whether a 1–2 kg estimate is plausible; searches for microbiota and bacterial mass found no passage on that point. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The total weight of the human microbiota is much more likely to be less than 500 g, and perhaps even considerably lower in some cases.

    “the total weight of the human microbiota is much more likely to be less than 500 g, and perhaps even considerably lower than this in some cases.”

    From Human microbiome myths and misconceptions (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Results and Table 1 report daily stool weights, not the total weight of the human microbiota. Searches for microbiota weight, bacterial mass, and a 500 g estimate found no passage addressing the claim; daily stool output cannot establish total microbiota weight. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Doll R, Payne P, Waterhouse J, eds. Cancer incidence in five continents. Union Internationale Contre le Cancer. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1966.
  2. Burkitt DP. Epidemiology of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 1971;28:3-13.
  3. Davies GJ, Crowder M, Reid B, Dickerson JWT. Bowel func- tion measurements of individuals with different eating pat- terns. Gut 1986;27:164-169.
  4. dietary fibre on faecal excretion by human subjects. Br J Nutr 1979;41:495-503,
  5. Pomare EW, State NH, Fisher A. Dietary fibre intake, stool weight and intestinal transit in four South Pacific populations (abstr). Aust NZ J Med 1981;11:221.
  6. Tarida N, Hikasa Y, Shimoyama T, Setchell KDR. Faecal bile acids in adenomatous polyps. Gut 1984;25:824-832.
  7. IARC Collaborative Group. Diet and large bowel cancer in Denmark and Finland. Nutr Cancer 1982;4:1-79.
  8. IARC Intestinal Microecology Group. Dietary fibre, transit time, faecal bacteria, steroids, and colon cancer in two Scan- dinavian populations. Lancet 1977;2:207-211.
  9. Cummings JH, Beatty ER, Kingman S, Bingham SA, Englyst HN. Laxative properties of resistant starches (abstr). Gastroen- terology 1992;102:A548.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cummings, J. H., Bingham, S. A., Heaton, K. W., & Eastwood, M. A.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
ORCID
Cummings, John H.
Venue
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1992-12
Volume
103
Issue
6
Pages
1783-1789
ISSN
0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0016-5085(92)91435-7
OpenAlex
W1962918087
Cited by
462
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 19
FWCI
8.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
fecal weight, colon cancer risk, non-starch polysaccharides, dietary fiber, bowel transit time, whole gut transit time, bowel habits, stool output, Western diet, cancer prevention
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Colonic Neoplasms, Constipation, Dietary Fiber, Feces, Female, Gastrointestinal Transit, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Risk, Sex Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review