Table 2.

Effect of dietary protein amount, protein type, and resistant starch supplementation on fecal fermentation measuresa

Treatment groupsPb
Low caseinHigh caseinHigh casein + RSLow meatHigh meatHigh meat + RSProtein amountProtein typeRS
Fecal pH7.8 ± 0.17.5 ± 0.16.9 ± 0.67.2 ± 0.17.6 ± 0.16.7 ± 0.10.910.09<0.0001
Acetate, μmol/g16.8 ± 2.820.0 ± 3.428.0 ± 3.628.1 ± 4.625.3 ± 4.741.4 ± 3.90.760.07<0.0001
Propionate, μmol/g4.7 ± 0.64.9 ± 0.617.9 ± 2.26.4 ± 0.76.9 ± 0.926.4 ± 2.10.210.01<0.0001
Butyrate, μmol/g2.9 ± 0.63.5 ± 0.412.2 ± 1.73.9 ± 0.66.2 ± 1.717.4 ± 2.10.150.08<0.0001
Total SCFAs, μmol/g24.0 ± 3.828.4 ± 4.358.1 ± 7.038.4 ± 5.638.4 ± 6.285.2 ± 7.20.910.039<0.0001
Ammonia, μmol/mL6.5 ± 1.58.3 ± 1.94.5 ± 0.94.1 ± 0.36.3 ± 1.63.7 ± 0.40.190.150.05
Phenol, μg/g1.5 ± 0.31.4 ± 0.30.2 ± 0.11.3 ± 0.31.9 ± 0.30.9 ± 0.30.290.53<0.0001
p-Cresol, μg/g3.8 ± 0.43.9 ± 0.82.2 ± 0.15.9 ± 0.97.4 ± 0.86.2 ± 0.60.48<0.00010.16

Abbreviation: RS, resistant starch.

  • aValues expressed as means ± SE (n = 12).

  • bUnivariate ANOVA was used to determine the main effect of protein amount, protein type, and resistant starch supplementation.