Cited by 301Food composition and propertiesMicrobial Metabolites in Food BiotechnologyFood and Agricultural Sciences

Measurement of resistant starch in vitro and in vivo

Open access
Englyst, Hans N., Kingman, Susan M., Hudson, Geoffrey J., Cummings, John H.·1996·British Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

The digestibility of the starch in plant foods is highly variable, and is dependent on a number of factors, including the physical structure of both the starch and the food matrix. An in vitro technique has been developed to categorize starch in plant foods according to its likely rate and extent of digestion in the human small intestine. The in vitro method provides values for rapidly digestible starch, slowly digestible starch and resistant starch (RS). In the present study values for the RS content of foods, as measured by the analytical technique, were compared with the recovery of starch from these foods when fed to healthy ileostomates. Nine ileostomy subjects were given a polysaccharide-free diet with a breakfast supplement, on each of 2 d (two subjects) or 3 d (seven subjects), of biscuits made from wheat, potato or banana flours or from moist-heat-processed wheat or maize flours. RS intakes measured in vifro ranged from 8·5 to 15·0 g/d for the test biscuits, and mean starch recoveries in ileostomy effluent were 100·4 ( n 5, range 91−106)% of those values, but there was substantial variation between individuals. It is proposed that RS is defined as ‘the sum of starch and starch-degradation products that, on average, reach the human large intestine’. The analytical method for the measurement of RS in vitro based on this definition is shown to provide an accurate prediction of the average amount of starch that is likely to escape complete digestion and absorption in the human small intestine.

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 · 10.1079/bjn19960178

Cites

12 of 12 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Englyst, H. N., Kingman, S. M., Hudson, G. J., & Cummings, J. H.
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
1996-05
Volume
75
Issue
5
Pages
749-755
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W2157511414
Cited by
301
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food and Agricultural Sciences
Keywords
resistant starch, in vitro starch digestibility, starch recovery, rapidly digestible starch, slowly digestible starch, potato flour, banana flour, corn flour, small intestine digestion
MeSH terms
Adult, Zea mays, Digestion, Female, Fruit, Humans, Ileostomy, Intestine, Small, Male, Middle Aged, Plants, Edible, Solanum tuberosum, Starch, Triticum

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