classification andmethodology offoodcarbohydrates as ... · pdf fileclassification...
TRANSCRIPT
930S Am J Clin Nutr 1995;61(suppl):930S-7S. Printed in USA. © 1995 American Society for Clinical Nutrition
Classification and methodology of food carbohydrates asrelated to nutritional effects1’2
Nils-Georg L Asp
ABSTRACT Dietary guidelines encourage a considerableincrease in carbohydrate intake compared with the present
situation in Western countries. Recent developments regarding
nutritional effects of various digestible and undigestible carbo-
hydrates call for more detailed recommendations. The “carbo-
hydrate by difference” concept emerged 150 y ago because of
the lack of specific analytical techniques and still prevails. The
concept of available compared with unavailable carbohydrates
was introduced in 1929 to obtain a better measure of glu-
cogenic carbohydrates in diabetes. Dietary fiber was first de-
fined as the “skeletal remnants of plant cell walls,” but the
definition was later expanded to include all polysaccharides
and lignin that are not digested in the small intestine. The
gravimetnic method of the Association of Official Analytical
Chemists for total dietary fiber is based on this undigestibilityconcept. However, precipitation of soluble fiber componentswith alcohol, which is used in all current methods, creates an
arbitrary delimitation between oligo- and polysacchanides. The
complex carbohydrates concept is challenged by recent devel-opments regarding nutritional effects of various food carbohy-drates. Am J Clin Nutr 1995;6i(suppl):930S-7S.
KEY WORDS Dietary guidelines, simple sugars, complex
carbohydrates, disaccharides, oligosacchanides, polysacchar-
ides, starch, dietary fiber, inulin, polyols
Introduction
Until recently, recommendations on carbohydrate intakehave been more or less secondary to guidelines regarding
protein and fat intakes. The dietary fiber hypothesis, however,focused attention on the undigestible carbohydrates that are
also in the human diet. Consequently, many dietary guidelinesnow include recommended daily intake of dietary fiber (1).
It has generally been assumed for a long time that sugar andother low-molecular-weight carbohydrates are more rapidly
digested and absorbed in the small intestine than is starch, the
only digestible food polysacchanide. This assumption forms amain part of the concept of “complex carbohydrates” (2). Assummarized below, several food-related factors other than the
molecular size of the carbohydrates are now known to deter-
mine glycemic and hormonal responses after intake of carbo-
hydrate. The glycemic index of foods is important in diabetes
(3) and may be related to blood lipid concentrations, blood
pressure, satiety, and physical performance (4).
Sucrose has been implicated as the arch criminal in dental
caries and there is much evidence that sucrose intake is closely
related to caries. However, dental health has improved in many
countries despite a continuous sucrose intake above the recom-
mended amount. Host resistance factors, including general
nutritional status, obviously modulate the effect of sucrose,
leaving certain groups at risk (5). Furthermore, other ferment-
able carbohydrates, including starch, are capable of lowering
dental plaque pH after a meal and thus are potentially cario-
genic (6, 7).
Historical aspects
The proximate analysis of foods and feed developed in the
middle of the 19th century. Because of the absence of specific
analytical techniques carbohydrates were considered to be the
material remaining after analysis of protein, fat, ash, and mois-
tune (8). Studies of ruminant nutrition at the Weende Expeni-
mental Station in Germany revealed differences in the feed
value of different carbohydrates and this led to the concept and
analysis of crude fiber (9).
In a recent review, Southgate (10) described further devel-
opments regarding carbohydrates. Atwater (1 1) realized that
foods containing significant amounts of crude fiber had lower
digestible energy than predicted by measuring “carbohydrates
by difference.” This led to the introduction, in due time, of the
specific energy conversion factors of Merrill and Watt (12).
The first to report more detailed analytical work on carbohy-
drates in food was Rubner (13) in 1917. He used hydrolysis and
reducing sugar methods and also measured lignin as the acid-
insoluble residue.
A milestone in the understanding of the nutritional impor-tance of food carbohydrates was the differentiation of “avail-
able” and “unavailable” carbohydrates by McCance and Law-
rence (14) in 1929. Their main objective was to define
glucogenic (available) carbohydrates to improve nutritional
counseling to diabetic subjects. These authors also considered
the question, far ahead of their time, of whether short-chain
fatty acids that were produced as the result of fermentation of
unavailable carbohydrates would provide any energy to the
body. In 1935 Widdowson and McCance (15) developed meth-
ods for analyzing reducing sugars, sucrose, and starch in foods
From the Department of Applied Nutrition and Food Chemistry,
Chemical Center, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.2 Reprints not available. Address correspondence to N-G Asp, Chemical
Center, P0 Box 124, S-221 00 LUND, Sweden.
CLASSIFICATION OF FOOD CARBOHYDRATES 931S
as a measure of available carbohydrates, which were subse-
quently introduced in British food tables (16). In the United
States, Williams and Olmstedt (17) developed a method in
1935 that simulated digestion by incubating a food sample with
pepsin and pancreatin. The residue provided a more physio-
logical way to estimate undigestible material than the acid and
alkali treatment used in the crude fiber method. In fact, this
work was the basis for enzymatic gravimetnic methods for
dietary fiber analysis, which were developed later by Hellen-
doom et al (18) in the Netherlands. The introduction of cob-
nimetnic methods that were group-specific (ie, for pentoses,
hexoses, and unonic acids) constitutes the next step in analyt-
ical developments. Such methods form the basis for South-
gate’s analytical scheme including both digestible (available)
and undigestible (unavailable) carbohydrates (19, 20). In the
1960s, Van Soest and Wine (21, 22) provided important con-
tributions toward improvement of the crude fiber method of
animal nutrition, leading to the acid detergent and neutral
detergent fiber methods and subsequently to modifications
suitable for starchy foods (23, 24). In Berlin, Thomas (25)
studied both chemical and physiological aspects of “Ballast-
stoffe” in cereal flours and bran.
The term “dietary fiber” was first used by Hipsley (26) in
1953 to describe plant cell walls in the diet, which he thought
were protective against toxemia of pregnancy. In 1972, Trowell
(27) detected differences in the incidence of noninfective dis-
eases in rural Africa and Western countries and defined dietary
fiber as “the skeletal remains of plant cells,” later rephrased to
“remnants of the plant cell wall” (28). In 1976, the definition
was extended to include all undigestible polysacchanides and
lignin (29). Two factors led to this new definition: first, isolated
polysacchanides such as pectin and guar gum were used to
study physiological effects of dietary fiber components, and
second, such isolated polysacchanides, which were often used
as food additives, could not be differentiated analytically from
plant cell wall polysaccharides (30). In fact, knowledge about
effects of dietary fiber on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism is
still based mainly on studies with isolated polysacchanides
(3 1 , 32). These have often been used in amounts far exceeding
those occurring naturally in foods and the effects extrapolated
to foods. To date, no physiological effects of dietary fiber
components per se have been attributed to their presence in the
plant cell wall; rather, the consequences of dietary fiber com-
ponents are attributed to their undigestibility and to their phys-
ical properties such as viscosity (33). The presence of cells
with intact walls composed of fiber polysacchanides is impor-
tant for the enclosure of nutrients such as sugars in fruits (34)
and starch in beans (35, 36), slowing their absorption.
As described by Southgate (37), the 1976 definition of
dietary fiber of Trowell et al (29) is virtually identical with that
for unavailable carbohydrates (14). This definition could in-
dude the recently discovered resistant starch (38), and has been
widely accepted throughout the world by both scientists and
policymakers.
Primary carbohydrates of food
The most important properties of the primary carbohydrates
of food (Table 1) that influence nutritional value include the
following: the extent of absorption in the small intestine, the
TABLE 1
Main food carbohydrates
Monosaccharides
GlucoseFructose
Disaccharides
Sucrose
Lactose
Oligosaccharides
cr-Galactosides
Raffinose, stachyose
Fructans
Fructooligosaccharides
Polysaccharides’
Starch
Amylose
Amylopectin
Modified food starches
Nonstarch polysaccharides
CelluloseHemicellulosePectins
�3-glucans
Fructans
GumsMucilagesAlgal polysaccharides
‘ Degree of polymerization > 10-20.
rate of absorption in the small intestine, the metabolism of
absorbed monomers, and the extent, rate, and nature of prod-
ucts of fermentation in the large intestine. The extent of diges-
tion in the small intestine (digestibility) determines how large
the fraction of total carbohydrates is that will provide glucose
to the organism and the amount of carbohydrate that will pass
to the large bowel for subsequent fermentation. The digestibil-
ity of food carbohydrates is the most important nutritional
property. The rate of absorption in the small intestine primarily
determines the glycemic and hormonal responses after a meal
and is often expressed as the glycemic index, as defined by
Jenkins Ct al (39).
Glucose and fructose, which are present in foods as free
sugars or constituents of sucrose, are metabolized differently;
fructose yields much lower postprandial glycemic and insulin
responses than does glucose. Accordingly, the ratio of glucose
to fructose in the diet is of clinical interest, especially in
diabetes (40). Fermentation of undigestible carbohydrates is
now the subject of much interest and research. There is cvi-
dence, mainly from in vitro studies, that the proportion of the
various short-chain fatty acids formed during fermentation
differs depending on the specific carbohydrate as substrate,
with concomitant differences in physiological effects (41).
Mono- and disaccharides
The free monosaccharides (glucose and fructose) are present
in fruits, berries, and vegetables. Accordingly, intake of thesesugars may be considerable in a vegetarian diet (42). Free
galactose is present in a very small amount, except in fer-
mented milk products, as a result of the preference of micro-
organisms for glucose during fermentation (43). Sucrose is
usually the most abundant disaccharide in both mixed and
vegetarian diets (42). The lactose intake stems from milk
932S ASP
products, with cow milk containing ““50 gIL. The absorption
capacity for mono- and disaccharides is high, except in mdi-
viduals with disacchanidase deficiencies. However, recent stud-
ies have demonstrated a limited absorption capacity for fruc-
tose when it is given alone. Simultaneous intake of glucose
increases the absorption of fructose (44, 45).
Oligosaccha rides
The quantitatively most important oligosacchanides are the
a-galactosides raffinose, stachyose, and verbascose, which
have three, four, and five monomeric units, respectively, and
the fructooligosacchanides (45). The ct-galactoside content is
5-8% on a dry matter basis in beans, lentils, and peas. Fruc-
tooligosacchanides and higher molecular weight fructans con-
stitute up to 60-70% of the dry matter in some plant tissues (eg,
Jerusalem artichokes and onions), and fructooligosacchanides
are found in smaller amounts in many plants, including cereal
grains (46). The a-galactosides are not hydrolyzed by human
intestinal enzymes (47). An increased use of both fructooligo-
saccharides and fructans and other undigestible oligosacchanide
preparations can be expected in foods because of their reduced
energy content, their effects on the intestinal flora, and their
functional properties (48).
Polyols and polydextrose
Small amounts of sugar alcohols (polyols) such as sorbitol
are found in fruits. There is an increasing use of polyols such
as xylitol, sorbitol, mannitol, lactitol, and maltitol as low-
energy and noncaniogenic bulk sweeteners (48). There is a
limited capacity of the small intestine to absorb these sugar
alcohols (49).
Polydextrose, a synthetic glucose polymer that is used as a
low-energy bulking agent, is undigestible because of glycosidic
linkages that are essentially resistant to amylase (50).
Starch
Starch is the most important food carbohydrate quantita-
tively and together with glycogen is the only digestible food
polysaccharide. It occurs as a mixture of virtually unbranched
amylose chains composed of a-i,4-linked glucose residues and
of highly branched amylopectin with a-1,4 and ct-i,6 bonds.
Chemically modified food starches in which ester or ether
groups have been introduced are used as food additives.
The generally accepted concept that starch is completely
although slowly digestible has been challenged recently. Hy-
drolysis of starch is initiated by salivary amylase and is com-
pleted in the small intestine. In 1961 it was demonstrated that
amylase activity in the duodenum is sufficient to hydrolyze
starch in a meal within minutes (51). Consequently, starch in
solution, partially degraded starch, and glucose give the same
glycemic and insulin responses when given in equivalent
amounts (52). However, the glycemic index of starchy foods
varies widely (53) because of food properties affecting the
availability of starch for enzymatic degradation (54). Resistant
starch was first discovered as a starch fraction that associated
with the nonstarch polysacchanides in dietary fiber analyses
unless the sample had first been treated with alkali or dimeth-
ylsulfoxide (DMSO) to solubilize this starch (55, 56). How-
ever, this type of resistant starch, identified as retrograded
amylose (57, 58), is only one of several forms of physiologi-
cally resistant starch that pass through the small intestine (59).
Physically enclosed starch in beans, for example (60), and
ungelatinized starch granules of the B-type (eg, green bananas
and raw potato starch) are other forms of resistant starch, as
well as chemically modified (61) or dry-heated (62) food
starches. The physiological effects of resistant starch are cur-
rently being investigated. Resistant starch is fermented (63)
and has a fecal bulking effect (64, 65), representing properties
that are considered to be typical for nonstarch polysacchanides.
Nonstarch polysaccharides
Nonstarch polysaccharides can be storage polysacchanides
such as fructans (eg, inulin), glucomannans, and galactoman-
nans (eg, guar gum), although structural plant cell wall p0-
lysaccharides such as cellulose, hemicellulose, and pectic sub-
stances are the most abundant. Mucilages, alginates, exudate
gums, and various modified polysacchanides are other constit-
uents of the nonstarch polysacchanides (30). The fecal bulking
effect of dietary fiber is most prominent if the nonstarch
polysaccharides are resistant to fermentation in the large intes-
tine (66, 67). Other physiological effects, such as lowering of
plasma low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and attenu-
ation of blood glucose and insulin responses after a meal, are
attributed mainly to soluble, gel-forming polysacchanides.
However, the LDL-bowening properties of dietary fiber in foods
are modest and the fact that high-fiber foods are generally low
in saturated fat may be more important in clinical practice (31).
Similarly, the content of viscous, soluble fiber, such as f3-glu-
cans in cereals, is less important for the glycemic response than
are structural properties that limit the availability of starch for
enzymic degradation (68, 69). An effect of carrots on reducing
the glycemic response after a mixed meal is seen only if �200
g carrots are added to the meal (70, 71). Thus, excessive
emphasis on the soluble fiber content of foods may be mis-
leading and the physiological properties of the soluble fiber
may be lost if viscosity is diminished through processing (33).
Analytical considerations
Mono-, di-, and oligosaccharides, including polyols
Depending on the food matrix to be analyzed, an alcohol
extraction of the free sugars may be necessary. A final ethanol
concentration of �80% (vol:vol) should be used to avoid
extraction of polysacchanides. Some sugars, especially lactose,
have low solubility and may need lower alcohol concentrations
(eg, 50% vol:vol) during extraction with a final increase to
precipitate polysaccharides (72). Physical methods such as
polarimetry, refractive index, or density are still useful in pure
systems, such as in sugar production control. Methods based on
the reduction of copper salts and colonimetnic methods based
on condensation reactions with anthrone, orcinol, and carbazol
can also be used in well-known systems (72). The enzymatic
procedures based on specific, highly purified enzymes (73)
have been instrumental in providing means of specific and
precise analysis of carbohydrates in mixtures without high-
capital investments. On the other hand, gas-liquid chromatog-
raphy and HPLC are preferable when several different carbo-
hydrates are to be determined simultaneously. HPLC analysis
has been hampered by the relative insensitivity of refractory
CLASSIFICATION OF FOOD CARBOHYDRATES 933S
index detectors. However, this problem has been overcome by
systems using amperometric detection (74).
Starch
Enzymatic hydrolysis and specific glucose assay are the
methods of choice for the measurement of starch. Acid hydro-
lysis is less suitable in mixed foods because of glucose liber-
ation from other glucose-containing polysaccharides such as
f3-glucans. However, the enzymes used have to be carefully
monitored for contaminating activities. A heat-stable amylase
such as Termamyl in a combined gelatinization and hydrolysis
step has turned out to be particularly useful (75).
Dietary fiber
There has been extensive controversy regarding the analysis
of dietary fiber, partly because the needs for research have not
been clearly separated from those of food labeling and legis-
lation. Dietary fiber can be analyzed according to two main yet
different principles (30). In the gravimetnic methods the non-
fiber components are removed and the residue is weighed. This
residue can be analyzed for monomeric composition or starch
residues and also for protein and ash. The crude fiber and
detergent fiber methods are both gravimetnic methods. Enzy-
matic gravimetnic methods as developed by Asp et a! (76) and
as approved by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists
(AOAC) (77, 78) use alcohol precipitation to recover soluble
fiber components. Such methods are useful to measure total
dietary fiber or soluble and insoluble components separately,
with appropriate correction for protein and ash in the fiberresidue. The component analysis methods use more or less
specific determination of monomeric constituents, with subse-
quent summing up for a total fiber determination. As in the
gravimetnic methods, soluble and insoluble components can be
determined separately. However, the solubility of polysaccha-
rides is method-dependent and is determined by temperature,
time, and pH (79). The Southgate procedure (19) uses colon-
metric methods to determine hexoses, pentoses, and uronic
acids. The methods of Theander et al (80) and Englyst et al (81)
use gas-liquid chromatography for neutral sugar components
and a colonimetric assay for uronic acids. HPLC determination
is gaining in popularity. A colonimetric measurement of reduc-
ing sugars has been introduced as an alternative to the gas-
liquid determination method developed by Englyst et al (81).Advantages and disadvantages with the two principally dif-
ferent methods of analyzing dietary fiber are summarized in
Table 2. Enzymatic-gravimetric methods are simple and no-bust, with no requirement for advanced equipment. There is a
risk of overestimating the fiber content if other components
remain in the residue. However, the residue can be analyzed for
any such contaminating components. Colorimetnic methods
can be inflated by nonspecific reactions and can give various
response factors for different monomers. Specific gas-liquid
chromatography and HPLC measurement, on the other hand,
require complete and quantitative recovery of monomers after
hydrolysis of the polysacchanides. Incomplete hydrolysis or
losses due to decomposition of monomers will lead to under-
estimation (30).
The current component analysis methods use acid hydroly-
sis. As in amino acid analysis, conditions for hydrolysis have to
be chosen to obtain an optimal compromise between hydrolysis
TABLE 2
Advantages and disadvantages of different kinds of methods for dietary
fiber analysi5’
Component analysisEnzymatic-
gravimetric GLC, HPLC Colorimetry
Equipment Simple Advanced Simple
Information on composition No Yes Yes and no
Risk of overestimation Yes2 No (Yes)
Risk of underestimation No Yes3 Yes3
1 For review, see reference 30. GLC, gas-liquid chromatography; HPLC,
high-pressure liquid chromatography.2 Residue can be analyzed.
3 If hydrolysis is incomplete.
yield and monomer degradation. Corrections are used for hy-
drolysis losses of the different components. Quantitative hy-
drolysis is particularly difficult to obtain with acidic polysac-
charides because of the high acid stability of glycosyl uronic
acid linkages. This fact and the more rapid degradation of
monomeric uronic acids in an acidic condition are reasons whycobonimetnic methods are still preferred for uronic acid deter-
minations (30).Enzymatic, gravimetnic dietary fiber determination has been
tested in several collaborative studies carried out within the
AOAC. Recently this organization also tested the gas-liquid
chromatography component analysis method of Theander et al(80). The gas-liquid chromatography and colorimetnic varieties
of the Englyst method have been tested in studies carried out bythe Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in Great Bnit-
am. A comparison of studies indicates improved performanceover time with typical mean R95 values of 2-3 for both the
gravimetnic methods approved by the AOAC and for the En-
glyst method. The best performance thus far has been in a
Swiss study using the enzymatic gravimetric AOAC method
(R95 1.01.1) (82). An R95 of 2 at 100 g dietary fiber/kg meansthat 19 of 20 single estimates run in different laboratories arelikely to fall within the interval of 90-1 10 gfkg.
There are few formal collaborative studies covering morethan one method. In a recent study coordinated by the Euro-
pean Community Bureau of Reference, dietary fiber values
with the AOAC method could be certified for three differentmaterials. Indicative values only could be given for the Englyst
gas-liquid chromatography and colonimetnic methods, butmean values obtained with these methods were similar to thoseobtained with the AOAC method (83). For most foods, esti-mates of total dietary fiber with the enzymatic gravimetnic
method would not be significantly different from estimates ofnonstarch polysacchanides derived from the Englyst method.
This means that the CIs for the different methods overlap (30).
Note also that two collaborative studies have shown consis-
tently higher values with the colonimetric Englyst method thanwith the original gas-liquid chromatography variety (30). Onlyfor foods with particularly high amounts of resistant starch ofthe retrograded amylose type, or lignin, would Englyst-derivedvalues be expected to be significantly lower than estimates withmethods including these components.
Resistant starch
Methods for analysis of resistant starch are listed in Table 3.Originally, resistant starch was determined as the difference in
934S ASP
TABLE 3
Methods for analysis of resistant starch’
Year Principle
1982 Difference between NSP glucan with and without DMSO or
KOH solubilization (55)1984 Starch analysis in dietary fiber residue (56)
1986 Extensive ce-amylase digestion, analysis of remaining starch,
and no gelatinization step (84)
1992 Standardized ball milling and amylase digestion, and
analysis of various resistant starch fractions (85)
1992 Chewing to disintegrate foods, pepsin and pancreatin
digestion, analysis of remaining starch (86)
‘NSP, nonstarch polysaccharide; DMSO, dimethylsulfoxide.
nonstarch-polysaccharide-glucan without and with DMSO sol-
ubilization (55), or by analyzing a gravimetnic fiber residue for
starch associated with the fiber (56, 87). This starch can be
differentiated into “residual starch” or “resistant starch” (87).
The resistant starch determined by these methods consists of
mainly retrograded amylose (57, 58). Benny developed a
method in which the sample was subjected to extensive a-amy-
lase digestion without any heating step to gelatinize the starch.
In this way, resistant starch in the form of intact starch granuleswould also be analyzed. Two methods have been published that
are proposed to measure all of the physiologically resistant
starch (85, 86). A critical step is then to disintegrate the food in
a similar manner as when eaten. One of these procedures uses
chewing as a realistic disintegration step (86), whereas the
other method uses a standardized ball-milling step (85). Both
methods correlate with in vivo resistant starch as measured in
subjects with ileostomies.
Dietary fiber and unavailable carbohydrates
The definition of dietary fiber as undigestible polysacchar-
ides and lignin is similar to the definition of “unavailable
carbohydrates,” which is based on the fundamentally different
nutritional importance of various carbohydrates as determined
by their digestibility in the small intestine. Discussions of the
definition and analysis of dietary fiber have focused on whether
resistant starch and lignin are included (88, 38). Equally im-
portant, however, is awareness of components that are not
precipitated in the 70-80% (vol:vol) ethanol used in all the
methods to separate water-soluble fiber components. Inulin is
an undigestible polysacchanide that is not precipitated and
therefore not recovered in any of the methods. Polydextrose is
another undigestible oligopolysacchanide that also is not deter-
mined as dietary fiber. Physiologically, undigestible oligosac-
chanides have much in common with nonstarch polysacchar-
ides; they are fermented and influence the bacterial flora of the
colon (48, 89). Specific enzymatic or HPLC methods must be
used to determine the undigestible oligo- and polysaccharides
not recovered in the current dietary fiber analyses.
Classification of food carbohydrates for nutritionlabeling
Ever since the introduction of the carbohydrate by difference
concept, it has been customary in most countries to label both
digestible carbohydrates and dietary fiber as carbohydrates.
Chemically this is obviously correct and this convention has
been kept in the recent implementation of the US Nutrition
Labeling and Education Act (90). The Commission of the
European Communities, on the other hand, has defined carbo-
hydrates as metabolizable carbohydrates including polyols
(91). “Metabolizable” obviously means that carbohydrates
must be digestible in the small intestine, and this definition,
therefore, is related to the available carbohydrates concept (14).
Dietary fiber remains to be defined by the Commission.
The unavailable carbohydrates concept preceded the dietary
fiber concept, which was also based on undigestibility in the
small intestine. The plant cell wall origin of dietary fiber was
emphasized in the epidemiological association between dietary
fiber intake and disease. Physiological effects of dietary fiber,
however, have been related to undigestibility and physical
effects of dietary fiber constituents in the intestinal tract but
never to their plant cell wall origin. The importance of cell
walls in legumes and fruits for the glycemic response of these
foods is recognized, but disruption of these structures without
removing the fiber will abolish these effects. Methods pretend-
ing to give an index of plant cell walls cannot reveal such
structural properties (81).
A classification of food carbohydrates for nutritional label-
ing should be based on small intestinal digestibility. The en-
zymic gravimetnic AOAC methods for total fiber (77, 78) or
the component analysis method of Theander et al (80), which
include one important form of resistant starch and lignin, give
a closer measurement of unavailable carbohydrates than do the
Englyst methods (81), which do not include resistant starch and
lignin. However, all the methods including resistant starch need
further development regarding the distinction between digest-
ible and resistant starch. Furthermore, separate estimates of
alcohol-soluble but undigestible components, such as inulin,
polydextrose, and oligosacchanides have to be performed when
such components are present in significant amounts. The rela-
tion between nonstarch polysacchanides, total dietary fiber ac-
cording to the AOAC method, and unavailable carbohydrates is
illustrated in Figure 1.When a dietary fiber definition and an estimate as close as
possible to unavailable carbohydrates are used, available or
FIGURE 1. Relationship between nonstarch polysaccharides (NSP),
total dietary fiber, and unavailable carbohydrates. AOAC, Association of
Official Analytical Chemists.
CLASSIFICATION OF FOOD CARBOHYDRATES 935S
metabolizable carbohydrates can be calculated by difference.
Accordingly, an estimate of dietary fiber can be obtained by
difference if mono- and disaccharides and digestible starch are
determined as originally advised for unavailable carbohydrates
(15).The labeling of soluble fiber according to the AOAC method
is mandatory in the United States if claims regarding choles-
terol-lowening effects of the fiber are to be made. This require-
ment is reasonable because the cholesterol-reducing effects are
specifically related to gel-forming, soluble types of fiber. Note,
however, that the solubility of dietary fiber polysaccharides is
highly method-dependent because of different extraction con-
ditions (79). The most relevant conditions, from a physiologi-
cal perspective, remain to be defined. The monomeric compo-
sition of dietary fiber is of little guidance to predict
physiological effects, which are more related to viscosity,
fermentability, and structural properties of foods. However,
standardized methods for measuring such properties are still
lacking, although in vitro systems for prediction of glycemic
response seem promising (92). Such methods may prove useful
for documentation of food properties as a basis for specific
dietary advice or claims, although they may not be suitable to
produce specific data appropriate for food labels. U
References
1 . World Health Organization. Diet, nutrition, and the prevention of
chronic diseases. World Health Organization. World Health Organ
Tech Rep Ser 1990;797.
2. US Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Dietary
goals for the United States. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office, 1977.
3. Brand Miller JC. Importance of glycemic index in diabetes. Am J Clin
Nutr 1994;59(suppl):747S-53S.
4. Truswell AS. Glycaemic index of foods. Eur J Clin Nutr 1992;46:
591-101.
5. Navia J. Carbohydrates and dental health. Am J Clin Nutr 1994;
59(suppl):719S-28S.
6. Lingstrom P, Hoim J, Birkhed D, Bjdrck I. Effects of variously
processed starch on pH of human dental plaque. Scand I Dent Res
1989;97:392-400.
7. Lingstrom P, Birkhed D, Granfeldt Y, BjOrck I. pH measurements of
human dental plaque after consumption of starchy foods using the
microtouch and the sampling method. Caries Res 1993;27:394-401.
8. Henneberg W, Stohmann F. Contribution on the rational feeding of
ruminants. (Beitrage zur BegrUndung einer rationellen FUtterung der
Wiederkhuer, I.) Braunschweig, 1860 (in German).
9. Henneberg W, Stohmann F. On the maintenance feeding of one-year-
old cattle. (Ueber das Erhaltungsfutter volljahrigen Rindviehs.)
J Landw 1859;3:485-551 (in German).
10. Southgate DAT. The dietary fibre hypothesis: a historical perspective.
In: Schweizer IF, Edwards CA, eds. Dietary fibre-a component of
food. Nutritional function in health and disease. London: Springer-
Verlag, 1992:3-20.
1 1. Atwater WO. Discussion of the terms digestibility, availability and
fuel value. Twelfth annual report of the Storrs Agricultural Experi-
mental Station. Storrs Agricultural Experimental Station, 1900:69.
12. Merrill AL, Watt BK. Energy value of foods basis and derivation.
Agriculture handbook no. 74. Washington, DC: US Department of
Agriculture, 1955.
13. Rubner M. Investigations on whole grain bread. (Untersuchungen #{252}ber
Vollkornbrot.) Arch Mat Physiol 1917;74:245-372 (in German).
14. McCance RA, Lawrence RD. The carbohydrate content of foods.
London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1929. Medical Research
Council special report series no. 135.
15. Widdowson EM, McCance RA. The available carbohydrates of fruits.
Determination of glucose, fructose, sucrose and starch. Biochem J
1935;29:151-6.
16. McCance RA, Widdowson EM. The chemical composition of foods.
London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1940. (Special report series
of the Medical Research Council, no. 235.)
17. Williams RD, Olmstedt W. A biochemical method for determining
indigestible residue (crude fibre) in faeces: lignin, cellulose, and non-
water soluble hemicelluloses. J Biol Chem 1935;108:653-66.
18. Hellendoorn EW, Noordhoff MG, Slagman J. Enzymatic determina-
tion of the indigestible residue (dietary fibre) content of human food.
J Sci Food Agric 1975;26:1461-8.19. Southgate DAT. Use of the Southgate method for unavailable carbo-
hydrates in the measurement of dietary fiber. In: James WPT, Thean-
der 0, eds. The analysis of dietary fiber in foods. New York: Marcel
Dekker, 1981:1-19.
20. Holland B, Welch AA, Unwin ID, Buss DH, Paul AA, Southgate
DAT. McCance and Widdowsons’ the composition of foods. Cam-
bridge, UK: The Royal Society of Chemistry, 1991.
21. Van Soest PJ. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. I.
Preparation of fiber residues of low nitrogen content. J Assoc Off
Agric Chemists 1963;46:825-9.
22. Van Soest PJ, Wine RH. Use of detergent in the analysis of fibrous
feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell wall constituents. J Assoc Off
Anal Chem 1967;50:50-5.
23. Robertson JB, Van Soest PJ. The detergent system of analysis and its
application to human foods. In: James WPT, Theander 0, eds. The
analysis of dietary fiber in foods. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1981:
123-58.24. Jeraci JL, Lewis BA, Van Soest Pi, Robertson JB. Urea enzymatic
dialysis procedure for determination of total dietary fiber. J Assoc Off
Anal Chem 1989;72:677-81.
25. Thomas B. Contribution to the nomenclature and analysis of plant
cell-wall substances. (Beitrage zur Nomenklatur und Analytik
pflanzlicher Zellwandsubstanzen.) Gertreide Mehi Brot 1972;26:
158-64,168-9 in German.
26. Hipsley EH. “Dietary fibre” and pregnancy toxaemia. Br Med I
1953;2:420-2.
27. Trowell H. lschemic heart disease and dietary fiber. Am I Clin Nutr
1972;25:926-32.
28. Trowell H. Refined carbohydrate foods and fibre. In: Burkitt DP,
Trowell H, eds. Refined carbohydrate foods and disease. London:
Academic Press, 1975:23-41.
29. Trowell HC, Southgate DAT, Wolever TMS, Leeds AR, Gassull MA,
Jenkins DJA. Dietary fibre redefined. Lancet 1976;1:967.
30. Asp N-G, Schweizer iT, Southgate DAT, Theander 0. Dietary fibre
analysis. In: Schweizer TF, Edwards CA, eds. Dietary fibre-a com-
ponent of food. Nutritional function in health and disease. London:
Springer-Verlag, 1992:57-102.
31. Truswell AS, Beynen A. Dietary fibre and plasma lipids; potential for
prevention and treatment of hyperlipidaemia. In: Schweizer TF,
Edwards CA, eds. Dietary fibre-a component of food. Nutritional
function in health and disease. London: Springer-Verlag, 1992:
295-332.
32. Wolever TMS. Dietary management of diabetes. In: Knitchevsky D,
Bonfield C, Anderson JW, eds. Dietary fiber, chemistry, physiology
and health effects. New York: Plenum Press, 1990:287-99.
33. Jenkins DJA, Wolever TMS, Leeds AR, et al. Dietary fibres, fibre
analogues, and glucose tolerance: importance of viscosity. Br Med J
1978;1:1392-4.
34. Haber GB, Heaton KW, Murphy D, Burroughs LF. Depletion and
disruption of dietary fibre. Effects on satiety, plasma-glucose, and
serum insulin. Lancet 1977;2:679-82.
35. Wursch P, Del Vedovo 5, Koellreuter B. Cell structure and starch
936S ASP
nature as key determinants of the digestion rate of starch in legumes.
Am I Clin Nutr 1986;43:25-9.36. Tovar J, Granfeldt Y, Bjdrck I. Effect of processing on blood glucose
and insulin responses to legumes. I Agric Food Chem 1992;40:1846-
51.
37. Southgate DAT. Determination of food carbohydrates. Barking, Essex,
UK: Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, 1991.
38. Asp N-G, BjOrck I. Resistant starch. Trends Food Sci Technol 1992;
3:111-4.
39. Jenkins DJA, Wolever TMS, Taylor RH, et al. Glycemic index of
foods: a physiological basis for carbohydrate exchange. Am J Clin
Nutr 1981;34:362-6.
40. Uusitupa MIJ. Fructose in the diabetic diet. Am J Clin Nutr 1994;
59(suppl):753S-7S.
41. Edwards CA, Rowland IR. Bacterial fermentation in the colon and its
measurement. In: Schweizer TF, Edwards CA, eds. Dietary fibre-a
component of food. Nutritional function in health and disease. London:
Springer-Verlag, 1992:119-50.42. Abdulla M, Aly K-O, Andersson I, et al. Nutrient intake and health
status of lactovegetanians. Am I Clin Nutr 1983;40:325-38.
43. AIm L. Effect of fermentation on lactose, glucose, and galactose
content in milk and suitability of fermented milk products for lactose
intolerant individuals. I Dairy Sci 1982;65:346-52.
44. Rumessen JJ, Gudmand-Hoyer E. Absorption capacity of fructose in
healthy adults. Comparison with sucrose and its constituent monosac-
charides. Gut 1986;27:1161-8.
45. Rumessen JJ. Review: fructose and related food carbohydrates.
Sources, intake, absorption and clinical implications. Scand I Gastro-
enterol 1992;27:819-28.46. Nilsson U, Nilsson B, Dahlqvist A. Cereal fructosans. Part 2. Charac-
terization and structure of wheat fructosans. Food Chem 1986;22:95-
106.47. Nilsson U, Oste R, Jagerstad M, Birkhed D. Cereal fructans: in vitro
and in vivo studies on availability in rats and humans. J Nutr 1987;
118:1325-30.
48. Bornet FRJ. Undigestible sugars in food products. Am I Clin Nutr
1994;59(suppl):763S-9S.
49. Wflrsch P, Koelireutter B, Schweizer IF. Hydrogen excretion after
ingestion of five different sugar alcohols and lactulose. Eur I Clin Nutr
1989;43:819-25.
50. Oku I, Fujii Y, Okamatsu H. Polydextrose as dietary fiber: hydrolysisby digestive enzymes and its effect on gastrointestinal transit time in
rats. J Clin Biochem Nutr 1991;11:31-40.
51. Dahlqvist A, Borgstram B. Digestion and absorption of disaccharides
in man. Biochem J 1961;81:411-8.
52. Wahlqvist ML, Wilmshurst EG, Murton CR, Richardson EN. Theeffect of chain length on glucose absorption and the related metabolic
response. Am I Clin Nutr 1978;31:1998-2001.
53. WUrsch P. Starch in human nutrition. World Rev Nutr Diet 1989;60:
199-256.
54. Bj#{246}rckI, Granfeldt Y, Liljeberg H, Tovar J, Asp N-G. Food properties
affecting the digestion and absorption of carbohydrates. Am J Clin
Nutr 1994;59(suppl):699S-705S.
55. Englyst HN, Wiggins HS, Cummings Ill. Determination of the non-
starch polysaccharides in plant foods by gas-liquid chromatography of
constituent sugars as alditol acetates. Analyst 1982;107:307-18.
56. Johansson C-G, SiljestrOm M, Asp N-G. Dietary fibre in bread and
corresponding flours-formation of resistant starch during baking. Z
Lebensm Unters Forsch 1984;179:24-8.
57. Siljestrdm M, Eliasson A-C, Bjdrck I. Characterization of resistant
starch from autoclaved wheat starch. St#{228}rke1989;41:147-51.
58. Russel PL, Berry CS, Greenwell P. Characterization of resistant starch
from wheat and maize. J Cereal Sci 1989;9:1-15.
59. Englyst HN, Cummings JH. Non-starch polysacchanides (dietary fiber)
and resistant starch. In: Furda I, Brine CJ, eds. New developments in
dietary fiber. New York: Plenum Press, 1990:205-25.
60. Schweizer IF, Andersson H, Langkilde AM, Reiman 5, Torsdottir I.
Nutrients excreted in ileostomy effluents after consumption of mixed
diets with beans or potatoes. II: starch, dietary fibre and sugars. Eur I
Clin Nutr 1990;44:567-75.
61. Bjdrck I, Gunnarsson A, OstergArd K. A study of native and chemi-
cally modified potato starch. Part II. Digestibility in the rat intestinal
tract. Sthrke 1989;41:128-34.
62. Siljestr#{246}m M, Bj#{246}rckI, Westerlund E. lransglycosylation reactions
following heat treatment of starch-effects on enzymic digestibility.
Sthrke 1989;41:95-100.
63. Cummings JH, Englyst HN. Measurement of starch fermentation in the
human large intestine. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1991;69:121-9.
64. Shetty PS, Kurpad A. Increasing starch intake in the human increases
fecal bulking. Am J Clin Nutr 1986;43:567-75.
65. Cummings JH, Beatty SM, Kingman SA, Bingham 5, Englyst HN.
Faecal bulking effect of resistant starch. Gastroenterology 1992;102:
A548(abstr).
66. Nyman M, Asp N-G, Cummings JH, Wiggins H. Fermentation of
dietary fibre in the intestinal tract: comparison between man and rat.
Br J Nutr 1986;55:487-96.
67. Asp N-G, Bj#{246}rckI, Nyman M. Physiological effects of cereal dietary
fibre. Carbohydr Polym 1993;21:183-7.
68. Liljeberg H, Granfeldt Y, Bjdrck I. Metabolic response to starch in
bread containing intact kernels versus milled flour. Eur J Clin Nutr
1992;46:561-75.
69. Granfeldt Y, Liljeberg H, Drews A, Newman R, Bjdrck I. Glucose andinsulin responses to barley products: influence of food structure and
amylose-amylopectin ratio. Am J Clin Nutr 1994;59: 1075-82.
70. Gustafsson K, Asp N-G, Hagander B, Nyman M. Effects of different
vegetables in mixed meals on glucose homeostasis and satiety. Eur J
Clin Nutr 1993;47:192-200.
71. Gustafsson K, Asp N-G, Hagander B, Nyman M. Dose-response
effects of boiled carrots and effect of carrots in lactic acid in mixed
meals on glycaemic response and satiety. Eur I Clin Nutr 1994;48:
386-96.
72. Greenfield H, Southgate DAT. Food composition data. Production,
management and use. London: Elsevier Applied Science, 1992:94-
104.
73. Anonymous. Methods of enzymatic food analysis. Mannheim, Ger-
many: Boehringer Mannheim GmbH, 1984.
74. Lee YC. High-performance anion-exchange chromatography for car-
bohydrate analysis. Anal Biochem 1990;189:151-62.
75. Holm I, Bjdrck I, Drews A, Asp N-G. A rapid method for the analysis
of starch. Sthrke 1986;38:224-6.
76. Asp N-G, Johansson C-G, Hailmer H, SiljestrOm M. Rapid enzymatic
assay of soluble and insoluble dietary fiber. J Agnic Food Chem
1983;31:476-82.77. Prosky L, Asp N-G, Schweizer IF, DeVries JW, Furda I. Determina-
tion of insoluble, soluble, and total dietary fiber in foods and food
products: inter-laboratory study. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 1988;71:
1017-23.
78. Lee 5, Prosky L, DeVries I. Determination of total, soluble and
insoluble dietary fiber in foods: collaborative study. I Assoc Off Anal
Chem 1992;75:395-416.
79. Monro IA. Dietary fiber pectic substances: source of discrepancy
between methods of fiber analysis. I Food Comp Anal 1991;4:88-99.
80. Theander 0, Aman p, Westerlund E, Graham H. The Uppsala method
for rapid analysis of total dietary fiber. In: Furda I, Brine Ci, eds. New
developments in dietary fiber. New York: Plenum Press, 1990:273-81.
81. Englyst HN, Cummings JH, Wood R. Determination of dietary fibre in
cereals and cereal products-collaborative trials. III. Study of further
simplified procedures. I Assoc PubI Analysts 1987;25:73-110.
82. Schweizer TF, Walter E, Venetz P. Collaborative study for the enzy-
matic, gravimetric determination of total dietary fibre in foods. Mitt
Geb Lebensmittelunters Hyg 1988;79:57-68.
83. Hollman PCH, Boenke A, Wagstaffe P1. The certification of major
components and major elements in five food reference materials.
Fresenius J Anal Chem 1993;345:174-9.
CLASSIFICATION OF FOOD CARBOHYDRATES 937S
84. Berry CS. Resistant starch: formation and measurement of starch that
survives exhaustive digestion with amylolytic enzymes during the
determination of dietary fibre. J Cereal Sci 1986;4:301-14.
85. Englyst HN, Kingman SM, Cummings JH. Classification and mea-
surement of nutritionally important starch fractions. Eur J Clin Nutr
1992;46:S33-50.
86. Muir JG, O’Dea K. Measurement of resistant starch: factors affecting
the amount of starch escaping digestion in vitro. Am I Clin Nutr
1992;56:123-7.
87. Bj#{246}rckI, Nyman M, Pedersen B, SiljestrOm M, Asp N-G, Eggum BO.
On the digestibility of starch in wheat bread-studies in vitro and in
vivo. I Cereal Sci 1986;4:1-11.
88. Cummings JH, Englyst HN. What is dietary fibre? Trends Food Sci
Technol 1991;1:99-103.
89. Berggren A, Bj#{246}rckI, Nyman M, Eggum BO. Short-chain fatty acid
content and pH in caecum of rats given various sources of carbohy-
drates. I Sci Food Agnic 1993;63:397-406.
90. Anonymous. Rules and regulations. Fed Regist 1993;58:2095-6.
91. Anonymous. Council directive of 24 September 1990 on nutrition
labelling for foodstuffs (90/496/EEC). Off I Eur Communities 1990;
L276:40-4.92. Granfeldt Y, Bj#{246}rckI, Drews A, Tovar I. An in vitro procedure based
on chewing to predict metabolic response to starch in cereal and
legume products. Eur I Clin Nutr 1992;46:649-60.