Journal of Nutrition OpenSOurce Diets- www.ResearchDiets.com

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Nutrition Vol. 15 No. 3 March 1938, pp. 245-256
Copyright
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clarke, M. F.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, A. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Clarke, M. F.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, A. H.

Recovery Following Suppression of Growth in the Rat1 ,2

One Figure

Miriam F. Clarke and Arthur H. Smith

Laboratory of Physiological Chemistry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven

The development of young rats following the suppression of growth due to restriction of mineral salts or energy intake was studied. The criteria used were increase in weight and length of the body and the weight of the kidneys, testes, spleen, femurs and incisors. The animals given the restricted diets for the shortest period, 3 weeks, over-compensated by exceeding their controls at the end of 9 weeks of refeeding. Rats stunted by either method for longer periods failed within the period of observation to regain losses suffered during suppressed growth, although those restricted in energy intake alone made much greater gains in the time allotted and gave indications that complete recovery could ultimately occur. The weight of organs studied resumed a relationship to body weight like that of controls. Whether the stunted animals overtook and exceeded their controls in weight or failed to do so depended on the length of time their growth was suppressed which in turn influenced the growth capacity of the skeleton, both axial and appendicular.


1 Some of the data in this paper are taken from a dissertation presented by Miriam F. Clarke in partial fulfillment of the degree of doctor of philosophy, Yale University, 1933.

2 Aided by a grant from the Russell H. Chittenden Fund for Research in Physiological Chemistry.

Manuscript received 29 September 1937.





Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]