Food & Nutrition

Arab Journal of Food & Nutrition
In rats fed chitosan + silica diet, accumulative food intake was significantly
higher in NF diet (793.72 14.05 g compared to HF diet (682.48 26.4 g). also
chitosan + silica group in HF showed a significant decrease with body fat % (10.52
0.65 % vs. 12.35 0.45 %) and the changes in body fat % (2.54 0.65 % vs. 4.37
0.06 %, 4.31 0.32 % and 4.37 0.45 %) compared to its control, chitosan and silica
groups respectively. In consistence with chitosan feeding results, ME was significantly
lower with chitosan + silica group in NF diet (2855.80 50.56 kcal) compared to HF
diet (3274.54 126.7 kcal), and offset results in EE (2628.76 41.56 kcal vs.
3062.43 94.47 kcal).
After four weeks of the study, no significant differences (p > 0.05) were
demonstrated in fecal fat % of rats in chitosan group compared to its control in both
NF (5.64 0.6 % vs. 5.70 0.63 %), and its control in HF diets (8.02 0.96 % vs.
9.12 1.27 %). Chitosan groups showed a significant (p < 0.05) increase in fecal fat
mass compared to its control (1.00 0.14 vs. 0.17 0.03 g) in NF, and (1.50 0.26
g vs. 0.45 0.07 g) in HF. However, after seven weeks, chitosan group with HF diets
showed a significant increase (p < 0.05) in fecal fat % (21.88 3.5 %) compared to its
control (10.46 1.2 %), that was in contrary to those in NF diets (2.64 0.34 % vs.
3.48 0.33 %). Fecal fat mass was significantly (p < 0.05) increased in chitosan
group with HF diet (4.50 1.02 g vs. 0.63 0.11 g) compared to its control.
It can be concluded that incorporation of chitosan fiber in normal fat diets,
rather than in high fat diets, led to noticeably less fat deposition and weight gain.
Different results were obtained when both chitosan and silica were used. It seems
apparent that chitosan fiber had little or no effect on energetic variables in rats fed HF
diets.
300
Volume 11, No. 25, 2011
299