A double-blind placebo-controlled study to establish the bifidogenic dose of inulin in healthy humans
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the bifidogenic efficacy of two inulin doses in healthy human adults. Design A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover human study. Setting Food Microbial Sciences Unit, The University of Reading, Reading, UK. Subjects Thirty healthy volunteers, 15 men, 15 women (age range 19-35). Interventions Subjects consumed a chocolate drink containing placebo (maltodextrin, 8 g/day), 5 g/day inulin and 8 g/day inulin for a 2-week treatment period. Each treatment was followed by a 1-week washout at the end of which volunteers progressed to the next treatment. Faecal samples were obtained at the start of the study (baseline) and at the end of each treatment and washout period. Fluorescent in situ hybridization was used to monitor populations of Bifidobacterium genus, Bacteroides - Prevotella, Lactobacillus - Enterococcus and Clostridium perfringens - histolyticum subgroup. Results Bifidobacterial levels increased significantly upon ingestion of both the low (9.78+/-0.29 log(10) cells/g faeces, P Conclusions Both inulin doses exhibited a bifidogenic effect but a higher volunteer percentage responded to the high dose. A dose response effect was not observed but the magnitude of increase in bifidobacteria levels depended on their initial numbers. The higher the initial concentrations the smaller was the increase upon ingestion of the active treatments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Inulin can stimulate the growth of Bifidobacterium spp. and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, while increasing butyrate production.
“Numerous studies have shown that inulin can stimulate the growth of Bifidobacterium spp.and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, while increasing butyrate production (de Preter et al., 2008;Kolida et al., 2007;Ramirez-Farias et al., 2009).”
From The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis (2019) · cites this paper as Kolida et al., 2007
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 29 · Cited by 180
- Authors
- Kolida, S., Meyer, D., & Gibson, G. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Reading (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kolida, S
- ORCID
- Gibson, G R
- Venue
- European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
- Published
- 2007-01-31
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1189-1195
- ISSN
- 0954-3007 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-5640
- OpenAlex
- W2116710945
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 7.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Keywords
- inulin, bifidogenic effect, Bifidobacterium, fecal microbiota, dose-response relationship, prebiotics, healthy adults, chocolate drink, Bacteroides-Prevotella
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Bifidobacterium, Colon, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Feces, Female, Fermentation, Humans, Inulin, Male, Colony Count, Microbial, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, Cross-Over Studies, Probiotics
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