Cited by 233Gut microbiota and healthFood composition and propertiesMicrobial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology

Fecal Butyrate Levels Vary Widely among Individuals but Are Usually Increased by a Diet High in Resistant Starch1,2

Open access
McOrist, Alexandra L., Miller, Rosalind B., Bird, Anthony R., Keogh, Jennifer B., Noakes, Manny, Topping, David L., Conlon, Michael A.·2011·The Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

Butyrate and other SCFA produced by bacterial fermentation of resistant starch (RS) or nonstarch polysaccharides (NSP) promote human colonic health. To examine variation in fecal variables, especially butyrate, among individuals and the response to these fibers, a randomized cross-over study was conducted that compared the effects of foods supplying 25 g of NSP or 25 g of NSP plus 22 g of RS/d over 4 wk in 46 healthy adults (16 males, 30 females; age 31-66 y). Fecal SCFA levels varied widely among participants at entry (butyrate concentrations: 3.5-32.6 mmol/kg; butyrate excretions: 0.3-18.2 mmol/48 h). BMI explained 27% of inter-individual butyrate variation, whereas protein, starch, carbohydrate, fiber, and fat intake explained up to 16, 6, 2, 4, and 2% of butyrate variation, respectively. Overall, acetate, butyrate, and total SCFA concentrations were higher when participants consumed RS compared with entry and NSP diets, but individual responses varied. Individual and total fecal SCFA excretion, weight, and moisture were higher than those for habitual diets when either fiber diet was consumed. SCFA concentrations (except butyrate) and excretions were higher for males than for females. Butyrate levels increased in response to RS in most individuals but often decreased when entry levels were high. Fecal butyrate and ammonia excretions were positively associated ((2) = 0.76; P < 0.001). In conclusion, fecal butyrate levels vary widely among individuals but consuming a diet high in RS usually increases levels and may help maintain colorectal health.

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 · 10.3945/jn.110.128504

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Human fecal SCFA levels are approximately 60 g/kg for acetate, 10-20 g/kg for propionate, and 3.5-32.6 g/kg for butyrate.

    “Levels of SCFAs in human feces are approximately 60 g/kg for acetate, 10-20 g/kg for propionate and 3.5-32.6g/kg for butyrate (Macfarlane and Macfarlane, 2003;McOrist et al., 2011)”

    From The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis (2019) · cites this paper as McOrist et al., 2011

    The Discussion table reports acetate concentrations near 60 and propionate concentrations around 10–20, but in mmol/kg, not g/kg. The 'Fecal variables: ranges at entry and individual responses to diet' section gives the 3.5–32.6 butyrate range, also in mmol/kg. The claim reproduces the numerical values but assigns the wrong unit to all three. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cummings JH, Bingham SA, Heaton KW, Eastwood MA. Faecal weight, colon cancer risk, and dietary-intake of nonstarch polysacchar- ides (dietary fibre). Gastroenterology. 1992;103:1783-9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McOrist, A. L., Miller, R. B., Bird, A. R., Keogh, J. B., Noakes, M., Topping, D. L., & Conlon, M. A.
Affiliations
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
Corresponding author
Conlon, Michael A.
Venue
The Journal of Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-05
Volume
141
Issue
5
Pages
883-889
ISSN
0022-3166 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135928643
Cited by
231
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
Keywords
short-chain fatty acids, resistant starch, non-starch polysaccharides, dietary fiber, interindividual variability, colonic fermentation, acetate, ammonia excretion, sex differences, body mass index
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Ammonia, Butyrates, Diet, Fatty Acids, Volatile, Feces, Female, Fermentation, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Polysaccharides, Sex Characteristics, Starch, Water, Reproducibility of Results, Body Mass Index, Cross-Over Studies

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