Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:32:18.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some nutritional properties of unrefined sugar and its promotion of the survival of new-born rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

Eisa Omer Ahmed  and
Yudkin John
Eisa Omer Ahmed
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, Queen Elizabeth College, University of London, London W8 7AH
Yudkin John
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, Queen Elizabeth College, University of London, London W8 7AH
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The claims that rats fed on diets with ‘brown sugar’ (unrefined muscovado) perform better in a number of ways than do rats fed on refined white sugar (sucrose) have been examined.

2. Male Wistar rats were fed on purified diets from weaning, in which the carbohydrate component was either maize starch or unrefined sugar or sucrose. The sugars produced no differences in growth rate, body composition, or the weights of liver or kidneys. Compared with sucrose, unrefined sugar produced an increase in blood cholesterol and in the activity of hepatic fatty acid synthetase, and a greater increase in blood triglyceride. In confirmation of earlier results, rats fed on either sugar had heavier livers and kidneys, increased activity of hepatic glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (EC 1.1.1.49) and a higher concentration of plasma triglyceride compared with rats fed on maize starch.

3. Female Sprague-Dawley rats were fed on the same three diets as the male rats, and mated when they weighed about 200 g. No difference was seen in their ability to mate, the progress of pregnancies, or the sizes of the litters. Does fed on unrefined sugar produced litters of higher viability than did does fed on starch or sucrose. Survival was between 85 and 100% with unrefined sugar and between 30 and 75% with starch or sucrose.

4. Unrefined muscovado sugar has thus been shown to contain a factor required by female rats for the proper viability of their pups. This may be the same ‘Reproductive Factor R’ as that described by Wiesner & Yudkin (1951). In certain circumstances, unrefined muscovado sugar might therefore contribute to the nutritional value of a human diet, although in what circumstances, in what respect and to what extent it might do so, is by no means clear.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , November 1985 , pp. 593 - 603
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

Al-Nagdy, S., Miller, D. S. & Yudkin, J. (1970). Nutrition and Metabolism 12, 193–219.Google Scholar
Bender, A. E., Damji, K. B., Khan, M. A., McGregor, L. & Yudkin, J. (1970). Nature 238, 461–462.Google Scholar
Brekhman, I. I. (1980). Man and biologically active substances. Oxford: Pergamon press.Google Scholar
Brekhman, I. I. & Nesterenko, I. F. (1983). Brown sugar and health. Oxford: Pergamon press.Google Scholar
Dryden, L. P., Hartman, A. M. & Cary, C. A. (1952). Journal of Nutrition 46, 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1955). Biometrics 11, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folley, S. J., Henry, K. M. & Kon, S. K. (1947). British Journal of Nutrition 1, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, D. M. & Hubbard, D. D. (1960). Biochemical Biophysical Research Communications 3, 531–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, H., Briggs, G. M., Watson, R. H. J. & Yudkin, J. (1969). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 28, 43A..Google Scholar
Kang, S. S., Price, R. G., Yudkin, J., Worcester, N. A. & Bruckdorfer, K. R. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latzko, E. & Gibbs, M. (1974). Methods of enzymatic analysis, 2nd ed., pp. 881–884 [Bergmeyer, H. U., editor]Google Scholar
Löhr, G. W. & Waller, H. D. (1974). Methods of enzymatic analysis, 2nd ed., pp. 636–643 [Bergmeyer, H. U., editor]. New york and London: Academic press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National research council (1962). Publication no. 990. Washington, dc: National research councilGoogle Scholar
Wiesner, B. P. & Yudkin, J. (1951). Nature 167, 979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiesner, B. P. & Yudkin, J. (1952). Proceedings of the Society for the Study of Fertility 3, 46–49.Google Scholar
Wiesner, B. P. & Yudkin, J. (1958). British Journal of Nutrition 12, 138–146.Google Scholar
Yudkin, J. (1972). Pure white and Deadly. London: Davis-poynter.Google Scholar